Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
So dementia patients make full recoveries do they? Do heart failure patients at such a high age go back to living a full and normal life? You can't gloss over these issues for the use of a different generalised point.

The thing with average is that it tells you roughly what ball park the data is in. So the average age is absolutely important
I remember when I was learning some basic statistical analysis during six sigma training that average was a piss poor measurement as “on average, a man with his head in an oven and his feet in a freezer is at room temperature. Dead, but at room temperature”
 
I remember when I was learning some basic statistical analysis during six sigma training that average was a piss poor measurement as “on average, a man with his head in an oven and his feet in a freezer is at room temperature. Dead, but at room temperature”
The mean is 80.9. that better? lol
 
If leaders were being totally honest, they would say we have a plan which is something like :-

  • We will tolerate a certain level of COVID related hospital admissions over the next six months
  • We know that level will result in 10 to 15% patients of those patients being admitted to ICU and we will tolerate that
  • We know that that will result in COVID related deaths being in the order of x thousand to y thousand, and though we don't want that to happen, we accept that that will be the outcome
  • To have that sort of outcome, we currently believe we'll need the following level of restrictions
  • If cases leading to likely hospital admissions rise above our accepted level, then we'll increase restrictions
  • If hospital admissions are less than we're expecting, then we'll look at relaxing some restrictions
  • We'll do all that, pretty much at NHS region level

What level of deaths are people willing to tolerate ? To be totally dispassionate about it, you'd likely accept something akin to a bad flu year, and hope, probably correctly, that the restrictions will limit flu deaths so the net result wouldn't be so awful.

I don't, for a moment believe that that level of honesty will be forthcoming, nor do I believe that that level of honesty would be accepted.

Indeed.....
 
If leaders were being totally honest, they would say we have a plan which is something like :-

  • We will tolerate a certain level of COVID related hospital admissions over the next six months
  • We know that level will result in 10 to 15% patients of those patients being admitted to ICU and we will tolerate that
  • We know that that will result in COVID related deaths being in the order of x thousand to y thousand, and though we don't want that to happen, we accept that that will be the outcome
  • To have that sort of outcome, we currently believe we'll need the following level of restrictions
  • If cases leading to likely hospital admissions rise above our accepted level, then we'll increase restrictions
  • If hospital admissions are less than we're expecting, then we'll look at relaxing some restrictions
  • We'll do all that, pretty much at NHS region level

What level of deaths are people willing to tolerate ? To be totally dispassionate about it, you'd likely accept something akin to a bad flu year, and hope, probably correctly, that the restrictions will limit flu deaths so the net result wouldn't be so awful.

I don't, for a moment believe that that level of honesty will be forthcoming, nor do I believe that that level of honesty would be accepted.

Not a popular way of putting things but it’s spot on. Bravo.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...lnerable-prioritised-coronavirus-vaccine/amp/

Over 50, not under 18 etc

We have had access to the flu vaccine for God knows how long and don't prioritise everyone in the country. Someone made a good point that the cost of making the covid one may make it unrealistic to make enough for everyone as well.

So back to my question. If you vaccinated everyone who is elderly , vunerable , pregnant etc. What happens to everyone who isn't vaccinated? Do they stay under lockdown measures? Do we still close industries? Because they will still catch the virus , still get sick and still end up in hospital.
Its a given that people more at risk are prioritized.

That doesn't mean no one else will be able to get a vaccine shot.

Again the flu vaccine is for everyone. But in some countries they have criterias for those they highly recommend getting it. I looked up the NHS and the .gov.uk site and they are no different.

They highly recommend those who cat be worse off to get it but it is open to everyone. Everyone can and actually should get the flu shot.

I don't see covid being any different..

It is common sense to get the worse off and vulnerable first. For any disease/virus.

You think they won't make it like the flu shot then? They will and they will encourage everyone to get it also.

It will most likely be up to the population how your Country goes forward. Just like people who don't wear masks there will be those who will refuse to get the vaccine because it does not.affwct them. Those selfish types who forget the measure are to protect you from spreading it not getting it.
 
If leaders were being totally honest, they would say we have a plan which is something like :-

  • We will tolerate a certain level of COVID related hospital admissions over the next six months
  • We know that level will result in 10 to 15% patients of those patients being admitted to ICU and we will tolerate that
  • We know that that will result in COVID related deaths being in the order of x thousand to y thousand, and though we don't want that to happen, we accept that that will be the outcome
  • To have that sort of outcome, we currently believe we'll need the following level of restrictions
  • If cases leading to likely hospital admissions rise above our accepted level, then we'll increase restrictions
  • If hospital admissions are less than we're expecting, then we'll look at relaxing some restrictions
  • We'll do all that, pretty much at NHS region level

What level of deaths are people willing to tolerate ? To be totally dispassionate about it, you'd likely accept something akin to a bad flu year, and hope, probably correctly, that the restrictions will limit flu deaths so the net result wouldn't be so awful.

I don't, for a moment believe that that level of honesty will be forthcoming, nor do I believe that that level of honesty would be accepted.
Nobody credible is suggesting a 0 Covid outcome. You'd have to be either incredibly idealistic or naive to expect 0 deaths. However, it's not unreasonable (and I'm not for a second suggesting you're saying this, you make well observed points) to suggest that 9 months into this pandemic, our current national strategy is no different to what it was in March - it's currently, and largely as a result of some shambolic national management, a choice between 'protect the economy' or 'risk health'...

And the honesty really should be, but it won't, 'we were slow to prepare, we didn't understand the severity, we lost vital time early and have been catching up since and we still haven't got it right'.

It almost needs a reset. Lockdown again, get the rate low and then put measures in place (TTI, incentivise isolation, make space available to quaratine, virtual learning, hands, mask, distancing) to keep it low. But we are stuck now in this half way house of local lockdown, to push the economy while hoping to keep deaths down.

Had we prepared effectively in Jan, as many were pleading, we could be enjoying 'normality' now without this endless cycle of chat about which is the better option between two pretty damaging choices..
 
Nobody credible is suggesting a 0 Covid outcome. You'd have to be either incredibly idealistic or naive to expect 0 deaths. However, it's not unreasonable (and I'm not for a second suggesting you're saying this, you make well observed points) to suggest that 9 months into this pandemic, our current national strategy is no different to what it was in March - it's currently, and largely as a result of some shambolic national management, a choice between 'protect the economy' or 'risk health'...

And the honesty really should be, but it won't, 'we were slow to prepare, we didn't understand the severity, we lost vital time early and have been catching up since and we still haven't got it right'.

It almost needs a reset. Lockdown again, get the rate low and then put measures in place (TTI, incentivise isolation, make space available to quaratine, virtual learning, hands, mask, distancing) to keep it low. But we are stuck now in this half way house of local lockdown, to push the economy while hoping to keep deaths down.

Had we prepared effectively in Jan, as many were pleading, we could be enjoying 'normality' now without this endless cycle of chat about which is the better option between two pretty damaging choices..

I blame the planners.....
 

As crap as our government is, Europe's knackered - i.e. it's not just the UK who have panicked.

That's not to come across as a 'us v them'. Don't mean it like that. Just saying, lockdowns are inevitable now. They have no other way of dealing with it. Frankly after seven months it's nonsense, but here we are.
 
I know you're trying to joke but firstly I'm no more a planner than you are a barmaid, and secondly in all seriousness, the lack of ownership from those who've supported this Government is the reason why people are now advocating dangerous options like the GBD.

Well firstly, I own a pub purely as a retirement hobby, it costs me a fortune, and I’ve employed some very senior and expensive Directors who were planners, and employed purely because they were, so I’m not knocking the role. Secondly, I don’t know the best route to get rid of this accursed Covid, and I doubt anyone really does. When this started, I was one of the first to say I didn’t have a clue and that we should trust the scientists. However, time has moved on, we have learnt a lot and seen how results have come in from a variety of countries. The CMO and CSA no longer fill me with confidence either from the scientific evidence nor from the results of what’s happening on the ground. Our government, having similarly given their uncritical support to their scientific advice are,I suspect, a little more wary of their pronouncements and also now have to deal with the absolute destruction of the economy. So I admit, I don’t know the answer, but I don’t believe anyone else does in reality.....
 
Well firstly, I own a pub purely as a retirement hobby, it costs me a fortune, and I’ve employed some very senior and expensive Directors who were planners, and employed purely because they were, so I’m not knocking the role. Secondly, I don’t know the best route to get rid of this accursed Covid, and I doubt anyone really does. When this started, I was one of the first to say I didn’t have a clue and that we should trust the scientists. However, time has moved on, we have learnt a lot and seen how results have come in from a variety of countries. The CMO and CSA no longer fill me with confidence either from the scientific evidence nor from the results of what’s happening on the ground. Our government, having similarly given their uncritical support to their scientific advice are,I suspect, a little more wary of their pronouncements and also now have to deal with the absolute destruction of the economy. So I admit, I don’t know the answer, but I don’t believe anyone else does in reality.....
And yet, and consider this objectively, despite not knowing the answer, you've been certain enough to blame:
China
The WHO
Local planners
SAGE
Students
Neil Ferguson
Civil servants
Starmer
Burnham
Devolved Governments

So that's plenty of blame to go around..

None for those who actually have responsibility for the UK response to this. Not a jot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top